Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
This guy wants to install XP from a floppy drive.
It must be national ID10T Week.
OK you've overstated it. he's trying to install a driver for XP install, which only accepts the driver from a floppy.
No, he said it right in the top 3 sentences, "well duh, win 7 X64 on 1GB RAM and an Atom N450 ya that's the problem right there. So I'm attempting to reinstall XP, there is no recovery partition,"
He's trying to reinstall Windows XP using floppies.
OP is installing from DVD. Says right up top:
using F6 SATA-AHCI drivers from Dell support & drivers page
setup cannot see HDD without F6 drivers
boot system with USB DVD and USB Floppy attached
-
That's how I read it.
I don't know that XP was ever available on Floppy - I know Windows 95 was, but that might have been the last version. I don't recall ever seeing Windows 98 or later on Floppy.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
That's how I read it.
I don't know that XP was ever available on Floppy - I know Windows 95 was, but that might have been the last version. I don't recall ever seeing Windows 98 or later on Floppy.
Windows 98 had ~40 floppies for installation. I'm just old enough to remember that method.
-
@coliver said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
That's how I read it.
I don't know that XP was ever available on Floppy - I know Windows 95 was, but that might have been the last version. I don't recall ever seeing Windows 98 or later on Floppy.
Windows 98 had ~40 floppies for installation. I'm just old enough to remember that method.
Awww - I recall the 25 or so Windows 95 floppies.. CD's were so awesome then!
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
That's how I read it.
I don't know that XP was ever available on Floppy - I know Windows 95 was, but that might have been the last version. I don't recall ever seeing Windows 98 or later on Floppy.
XP did not come on floppy. Pretty sure 2000 did not either.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@coliver said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
That's how I read it.
I don't know that XP was ever available on Floppy - I know Windows 95 was, but that might have been the last version. I don't recall ever seeing Windows 98 or later on Floppy.
Windows 98 had ~40 floppies for installation. I'm just old enough to remember that method.
Awww - I recall the 25 or so Windows 95 floppies.. CD's were so awesome then!
Right! I did the ME install from CD it was so much better... other then ME being a complete cluster.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@coliver said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
That's how I read it.
I don't know that XP was ever available on Floppy - I know Windows 95 was, but that might have been the last version. I don't recall ever seeing Windows 98 or later on Floppy.
Windows 98 had ~40 floppies for installation. I'm just old enough to remember that method.
Awww - I recall the 25 or so Windows 95 floppies.. CD's were so awesome then!
Windows 3.11 came on six floppies, I think.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@coliver said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
That's how I read it.
I don't know that XP was ever available on Floppy - I know Windows 95 was, but that might have been the last version. I don't recall ever seeing Windows 98 or later on Floppy.
Windows 98 had ~40 floppies for installation. I'm just old enough to remember that method.
Awww - I recall the 25 or so Windows 95 floppies.. CD's were so awesome then!
Windows 3.11 came on six floppies, I think.
Sounds right - DOS 6.x came on 2 or 3.
-
Even for learning this sounds like a bad idea.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Even for learning this sounds like a bad idea.
But if he learns it the piece meal, get it for free way, he'll be qualified to work for a non profit!
-
@RojoLoco Sadly, yes that is how he will probably take the experience....
-
I didn't read the whole thread, but building your own SAN can be a good learning experience... if you learn from it.
-
Have to add in, since we collect these stories here, that @dafyre had a full environmental failure yesterday from using an IPOD that rested on an single IBM SAN. The SAN "just failed."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I didn't read the whole thread, but building your own SAN can be a good learning experience... if you learn from it.
Wouldn't do this for a (primary) production system, but a failure or off-site backup? Why not
-
@thwr said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I didn't read the whole thread, but building your own SAN can be a good learning experience... if you learn from it.
Wouldn't do this for a (primary) production system, but a failure or off-site backup? Why not
Cost. It costs more than not having the SAN, and increases risk while decreasing performance. In a system where the SAN is not saving money through scale (the only reason to have one at all), there are no positives, only negatives. If the failover site was so large that a SAN was cheaper, then sure, it could make sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@thwr said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I didn't read the whole thread, but building your own SAN can be a good learning experience... if you learn from it.
Wouldn't do this for a (primary) production system, but a failure or off-site backup? Why not
Cost. It costs more than not having the SAN, and increases risk while decreasing performance. In a system where the SAN is not saving money through scale (the only reason to have one at all), there are no positives, only negatives. If the failover site was so large that a SAN was cheaper, then sure, it could make sense.
Well, sure, not having a SAN is better in most cases.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Even for learning this sounds like a bad idea.
Doesn't this topic come up every week? Why are people still spouting the same misinformation they did 5 years ago?
-
@coliver said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Even for learning this sounds like a bad idea.
Doesn't this topic come up every week? Why are people still spouting the same misinformation they did 5 years ago?
Because vendors simply say "this is anecdotal, these things never fail" and people "want" to believe their vendors so much that they just keep doing what they say and calling every story of constant failure an anecdote and telling people who point out that the failures are constant crazy. Literally, you get called "crazy" or "lives in his own little world".
-
-
